Meet the progressive that's going to hand Joe Manchin his ass in the Democratic primary; Paula Jean

ttystikk · May 11, 2017

tangerinegreen555 said:
except more seats, more SCOTUS seats and being pushed further off center?

If we were a centrist country right now, would it be a better place?

I reject your underlying assumption that a neoliberal Democratic Party would somehow make America a more centrist place. Mr Obama enjoyed a Democrat majority Senate and a fucking supermajority in the House. Did we get centrism?

Certainly not, and that was doubly true on the street opposed to the upper classes.

ttystikk · May 11, 2017

tangerinegreen555 said:
A lot of that was SCOTUS. Different judges rule different ways. No W., no Citizen's United maybe?

There's that word again; 'maybe'.

We are here and maybe, along with coulda, woulda, shoulda are simply exercises in fantasy.

I'm not convinced things would have been better.

I am convinced things right now suck and are still worsening for the average American, yet NEITHER PARTY is willing to acknowledge the depths of the problem, nevermind suggest or champion any solutions.

schuylaar · May 11, 2017

ttystikk said:
There's that word again; 'maybe'.

We are here and maybe, along with coulda, woulda, shoulda are simply exercises in fantasy.

I'm not convinced things would have been better.

I am convinced things right now suck and are still worsening for the average American, yet NEITHER PARTY is willing to acknowledge the depths of the problem, nevermind suggest or champion any solutions.

That's because we're too busy letting Trump turn this into a dictatorship.

We could get their attention..just like those who sat out the election? We should sit out filing our taxes through extensions then ultimately not filing..

ttystikk · May 11, 2017

schuylaar said:
That's because we're too busy letting Trump turn this into a dictatorship.

We could get their attention..just like those who sat out the election? We should sit out filing our taxes through extensions then ultimately not filing..

I think more active and visible forms of protest are needed.

schuylaar · May 11, 2017

ttystikk said:
I think more active and visible forms of protest are needed.

Like?

1.
2.
3.

It needs to be something en masse AND legal. Extensions are completely legal and you can leverage this easily.

You can also change your Withholding Status to pay virtually no FWT..you'll still pay SS/Medicare at normal rate of 7.65% for your retirement. The most you can change it to without detection is M-9.

All very legal..knowledge is power. Why do you think Trump is shutting down agencies with no communication to the public for whom it works?

tangerinegreen555 · May 11, 2017

ttystikk said:
There's that word again; 'maybe'.

We are here and maybe, along with coulda, woulda, shoulda are simply exercises in fantasy.

I'm not convinced things would have been better.

So, things wouldn't be better if we didn't have 12 years of SCOTUS picks (1981-1993) from Reagan-Bush, or 8 years of Bush II (2001-2009)?

The court does a lot of the pushing to the right.

The court was the big prize last November.

tangerinegreen555 · May 11, 2017

ttystikk said:
I reject your underlying assumption that a neoliberal Democratic Party would somehow make America a more centrist place

I reject your assumption that more liberal candidates would make it through the primaries, let alone win the generals and change the system.

People tend to like their incumbents. That's why congress gets a 15% approval with the majority of it reelected over and over.

And the biggest problem is polarization and gridlock right now.

So, if both parties are as close as you kind of imply, we shouldn't be polarized.

There's a huge fucking difference in philosophy between the parties.

We'd be infinitely better off with Hillary's cabinet, policies, SCOTUS picks, etc.

The government is complex.

Power corrupts, your people are still humans.

You have fake news and apathy to deal with.

Best of luck.
I'll be voting Democrat either way.

Padawanbater2 · May 11, 2017

tangerinegreen555 said:
I reject your assumption that more liberal candidates would make it through the primaries, let alone win the generals and change the system.

We're going to see in 2018

I hope you remain consistent if/when liberal candidates pick up seats over establishment candidates

tangerinegreen555 · May 11, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
We're going to see in 2018

I hope you remain consistent if/when liberal candidates pick up seats over establishment candidates

Oh, I'm consistent.

45 years of consistency.

But it's not my vote you have to try to get, which I think you already know.
I historically have supported the most liberal candidates. They don't always win and I don't throw in the towel when they don't.

I do what I can. You ever work the polls and talk to people? Resistance and stupidity are everywhere. You wouldn't believe it.

Fogdog · May 11, 2017

ttystikk said:
That kind of thinking has led us to the shameful political situation we see today.

Time for another paradigm.

You don't get to choose when the paradigm changes. External pressures do that.

There can be radical change, most often accomplished with force, bullets and nooses, maybe guillotine. Not the path to survival for many in the society that is being "improved".

Did France have a better government after Napoleon? In the case of the French revolution, it's hard for me to say that the cost in blood was unjustified. The cost of what happened when a tyrant took over was unjustified IMO. Overall, France is better off now than if the aristocracy continued but do we really want the US to go through that?

Was Russia on it's way to becoming a democratic monarchy like Britain or was the revolution necessary and worth the cost given what we know of their history afterward?

ttystikk said:
There's that word again; 'maybe'.

We are here and maybe, along with coulda, woulda, shoulda are simply exercises in fantasy.

I'm not convinced things would have been better.

I am convinced things right now suck and are still worsening for the average American, yet NEITHER PARTY is willing to acknowledge the depths of the problem, nevermind suggest or champion any solutions.

This is your belief.

ttystikk · May 11, 2017

tangerinegreen555 said:
So, things wouldn't be better if we didn't have 12 years of SCOTUS picks (1981-1993) from Reagan-Bush, or 8 years of Bush II (2001-2009)?

The court does a lot of the pushing to the right.

The court was the big prize last November.

But the Democrats DIDN'T WIN. It was NOT A COINCIDENCE. The narrative that the Democrats would have won except for this or that is FALSE.

THEY LOST;
The executive branch.
The Senate.
The House of Representatives.
Most Governorships.
Most State Legislatures.

Ok?? I mean damn, y'all got blinders on?

Whatever it was the Democrats did (or as I keep saying, DIDN'T DO) DIDN'T WORK!

It's time to acknowledge that REALITY.

Neoliberalism works great for the ruling classes but it's not worth shit for the common citizen. Yet you never ask why the Democrats lost, only 'what if' they won?!

ttystikk · May 11, 2017

tangerinegreen555 said:
I reject your assumption that more liberal candidates would make it through the primaries, let alone win the generals and change the system.

People tend to like their incumbents. That's why congress gets a 15% approval with the majority of it reelected over and over.

And the biggest problem is polarization and gridlock right now.

So, if both parties are as close as you kind of imply, we shouldn't be polarized.

There's a huge fucking difference in philosophy between the parties.

We'd be infinitely better off with Hillary's cabinet, policies, SCOTUS picks, etc.

The government is complex.

Power corrupts, your people are still humans.

You have fake news and apathy to deal with.

Best of luck.
I'll be voting Democrat either way.

The parties are close door they shouldn't be parties? Why do you think that? Ford vs Chevy pickup trucks; very similar products, yet huge polarization. Why? To play up the differences, as minor as they may be.

Marketing 101.

ttystikk · May 11, 2017

Fogdog said:
You don't get to choose when the paradigm changes. External pressures do that.

There can be radical change, most often accomplished with force, bullets and nooses, maybe guillotine. Not the path to survival for many in the society that is being "improved".

Did France have a better government after Napoleon? In the case of the French revolution, it's hard for me to say that the cost in blood was unjustified. The cost of what happened when a tyrant took over was unjustified IMO. Overall, France is better off now than if the aristocracy continued but do we really want the US to go through that?

Was Russia on it's way to becoming a democratic monarchy like Britain or was the revolution necessary and worth the cost given what we know of their history afterward?

This is your belief.

I get to advocate for a paradigm shift whenever I want- and I want.

Your arguments about Napoleon are 200 years out of date, lol

I don't want bloody revolution in the streets either. But guess what? Police brutality is at an all time high. Suspiciously like blood in the streets, hmmm? The only way to avoid more of it is for the people to dictate a shift in Government, something the establishment- on both sides of the aisle- have been resisting by any means necessary.

Indeed, my belief. Yet I'm not alone. Why are you afraid to advocate for what you really want? Is the current system really working that well for you?

The top 1400 families in America make over 22% of all income earned in the United States. This is unsustainable when fully 30% of Americans live below the poverty line whether they work or not!

When will you address the underlying economic reality that's destabilising the country?

THAT'S where radical change will come from.

tangerinegreen555 · May 11, 2017

ttystikk said:
But the Democrats DIDN'T WIN. It was NOT A COINCIDENCE. The narrative that the Democrats would have won except for this or that is FALSE.

THEY LOST;
The executive branch.
The Senate.
The House of Representatives.
Most Governorships.
Most State Legislatures.

Ok?? I mean damn, y'all got blinders on?

Whatever it was the Democrats did (or as I keep saying, DIDN'T DO) DIDN'T WORK!

It's time to acknowledge that REALITY.

Neoliberalism works great for the ruling classes but it's not worth shit for the common citizen. Yet you never ask why the Democrats lost, only 'what if' they won?!

Lol.

One election at a time. Nobody wins them all. 1981-1993 was the big push to the right.

ttystikk said:
The parties are close door they shouldn't be parties? Why do you think that? Ford vs Chevy pickup trucks; very similar products, yet huge polarization. Why? To play up the differences, as minor as they may be.

Marketing 101.

Chevy and Ford are closer than Democrats and republicans.

That's hardly a valid comparison.

Global warming, ACA, SCOTUS, Russian ties, Actual news vs. fake, Cabinet heads, oil drilling & pipe lines, Muslim bans, the need for a special prosecutor, the votes needed to approve a SCOTUS pick, and on and on.

Not the same. Polarized differences.

ttystikk · May 11, 2017

schuylaar said:
Like?

1.
2.
3.

It needs to be something en masse AND legal. Extensions are completely legal and you can leverage this easily.

You can also change your Withholding Status to pay virtually no FWT..you'll still pay SS/Medicare at normal rate of 7.65% for your retirement. The most you can change it to without detection is M-9.

All very legal..knowledge is power. Why do you think Trump is shutting down agencies with no communication to the public for whom it works?

Street protest and strikes. Protest in front of government institutions like Federal buildings, courts and city halls. I'll keep thinking on this.

The only place Democrats still have a majority is in major city mayorships.

ttystikk · May 11, 2017

tangerinegreen555 said:
Lol.

One election at a time. Nobody wins them all. 1981-1993 was the big push to the right.

Chevy and Ford are closer than Democrats and republicans.

That's hardly a valid comparison.

Global warming, ACA, SCOTUS, Russian ties, Actual news vs. fake, Cabinet heads, oil drilling & pipe lines, Muslim bans, the need for a special prosecutor, the votes needed to approve a SCOTUS pick, and on and on.

Not the same. Polarized differences.

We are much further to the right now than 1993.

Ford vs Chevy is exactly the right analogy. Lots of sound and fury over trivial details to distract from the fact that both are nearly identical. That's been my point about American political parties for years now; the differences are in reality trivial, which can be traced back to who owns them.

Jimmy Carter has been calling America an oligopoly since at least 2013. Party differences don't amount to much anymore.

Time to stop thinking that we really get a choice at the polls and start thinking systemically.

tangerinegreen555 · May 11, 2017

ttystikk said:
We are much further to the right now than 1993.

Ford vs Chevy is exactly the right analogy. Lots of sound and fury over trivial details to distract from the fact that both are nearly identical. That's been my point about American political parties for years now; the differences are in reality trivial, which can be traced back to who owns them.

Jimmy Carter has been calling America an oligopoly since at least 2013. Party differences don't amount to much anymore.

Time to stop thinking that we really get a choice at the polls and start thinking systemically.

If you don't think there's a difference between Mrs. Clinton and the asshole that won by a fluke, we really have nothing else to discuss on this matter.

Fogdog · May 11, 2017

ttystikk said:
I get to advocate for a paradigm shift whenever I want- and I want.

Your arguments about Napoleon are 200 years out of date, lol

I don't want bloody revolution in the streets either. But guess what? Police brutality is at an all time high. Suspiciously like blood in the streets, hmmm? The only way to avoid more of it is for the people to dictate a shift in Government, something the establishment- on both sides of the aisle- have been resisting by any means necessary.

Indeed, my belief. Yet I'm not alone. Why are you afraid to advocate for what you really want? Is the current system really working that well for you?

The top 1400 families in America make over 22% of all income earned in the United States. This is unsustainable when fully 30% of Americans live below the poverty line whether they work or not!

When will you address the underlying economic reality that's destabilising the country?

THAT'S where radical change will come from.

I have no idea what you are doing that is different from what I'm doing other than fulminate about an imagined and unnamed "Democratic Party Elite"

UncleBuck · May 11, 2017

Padawanbater2 said:
We're going to see in 2018

I hope you remain consistent if/when liberal candidates pick up seats over establishment candidates

your words really have no meaning anymore. 'establishment' at this point only means 'that which padaraper does not like'.

UncleBuck · May 11, 2017

ttystikk said:
But the Democrats DIDN'T WIN. It was NOT A COINCIDENCE. The narrative that the Democrats would have won except for this or that is FALSE.

THEY LOST;
The executive branch.
The Senate.
The House of Representatives.
Most Governorships.
Most State Legislatures.

Ok?? I mean damn, y'all got blinders on?

Whatever it was the Democrats did (or as I keep saying, DIDN'T DO) DIDN'T WORK!

It's time to acknowledge that REALITY.

Neoliberalism works great for the ruling classes but it's not worth shit for the common citizen. Yet you never ask why the Democrats lost, only 'what if' they won?!

democrats won seats in the house and senate as well as the executive by 3 million.

Meet the progressive that's going to hand Joe Manchin his ass in the Democratic primary; Paula Jean

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member